Someone in Canuckistan is going to have to explain how a judge can specifically tell a jury not to acquit someone.
Down here, that would be grounds of appeal from jump. Jury nullification against the rules up north?
(Manslaughter's my vote, given the options.)

While I certainly understand why the guy did it, do we want vigilante justice running rampant? I mean look what happened to that Connecticut lawyer who killed the guy who supposedly molested his two-year-old, only he didn't.

On the one hand I say give him manslaughter with a very light sentence, hell give him a medal for ridding us of a drug dealer. But on the other, what sort of precedent does that set, especially if the wrong guy gets it?

Interesting case. I wonder what would happen if the jury came out and said, "Screw you, judge. We find him not guilty."

Click to expand...

What would happen? The members of the jury would probably be cited for contempt of court and a mistrial would most likely be declared.

Why the dad's lawyer didn't go for a temporary insanity defence here is beyond me. He had a much better chance of walking than with a justifiable homicide defence.

By the way, I looked into the various punishments for homicide in Canada. In many cases, manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death don't carry minimum sentences like murder beefs do. But when a firearm is used, a conviction for manslaughter or crim neg causing death results in a mandatory sentence of at least four years in a federal penitentiary. And, because it's a mandatory sentence set out in statute law, I don't believe the judge would have the power to suspend it.

I'd want to give him manslaughter, but the evidence says I have to give him first-degree murder.
Agree with you Double J, his lawyer should have gone with the temporary instanity defense. Can the father appeal on grounds of incompitent representation and try to get it overturned on temporary insanity?

Reason the judge is telling them they cannot come back with a not guilty verdict is the guy ADMITS HE SHOT THE KID. How're you gonna come back with a not guilty verdict?
I come back with a first degree rap -- that seemed to be an awfully short road to "I guess my only recourse is to kill the kid," and five shots... suggests to me the intent was to kill, not just protect his daughter. Also not buying the vague memory defense ("defence").